Modified Performance stats for S3!

[Ess_Three]

If you think that I came here wanting to argue with you, you are wrong.

I don't think you wanted to argue.
You posted something as fact and I told you it was crap.
That's all.

I am telling you about my experience and, belive me, I am not a granturismo player on playstation!

I couldn't care...I don't even own a Playstation.

The power that I told you is CORECT.
It is real life power , NOT 4500 rpm power.

And what precisely does 4500 RPM have to do with things?
My peak power was at 5250RPM. Look at the damn graph.
So what HAS 4500 got to do with it?
That's not even peak torque.

I have done at least 3 diferent turbo upgrades on my S3, excluding the fapt that I putt everything on the standad K04(silicon hoses,intake silicon hose, diferent intake filters and kits,rollers,fmic,gaskets,spark plugs,coils, diferent acuators or blowoff valves, all the N75, race exhaust and even APR downpipe) and by diferent I mean more than one!

I'm not dusputing that.
I spent 3 years getting my S3 to make those numbers and spent a fortune doing so...rubbishing many so-called upgrades in the process.

Again : you can not exceed 255-260 bhp at factory peak power rpm or higher.

Where is factory peak power?
5900 RPM isn't it?
So let me see...210 BHP @ 5900 standard against lets say 265 BHP @ 5900 - interpolating the graph as shown.
Isn't that higher?
It's on the graph.

I agree that a K04 will never give you top end as it's too small...but you can get WAY over standard power at the standard peak power point, easily.
It's all there...on the graph.

You can exceed this at lower rpm, like 4500, which is optimistic in my opinion, but this "mid range peak power" doesn't do anything good for you. You overstress the transmision and the cluch and tends to lose traction in wet,cold or winter conditions that our car is famous for.

Ahh...OK. You don't believe the figures.
That's fine.
I have 20+ dyno plots for my S3, 30+ for my GTI and several for my 911...not to mention many others all that show exactly standard power on standard cars ranging from 125 BHP (Lupo GTI) to 320 (911).
All on the same dyno...
All with the same operator.
But this set of figures is optimistic eh?
I have dyno plots from that S3 starting at 208 BHP / 199 lb-ft through every stage of the 3 year process...up to 275 BHP /332 lb-ft.
So is every dyno plot optimistic?
For every car?
Over 4 years?



As for the "mid range peak power doesn't do anything for you" I've never heard such drivel.
It gives you the grunt you want without having to rev the nuts off an engine that in standard form, doesn't rev especially well...saving wear if nothing else.

I didn't drag race the car so I'll happiliy trade some top end for lots more torque and midrange as that's what makes it quick through the gears and out of corners.

It's not as if the S3 doesn't have the traction when set up properly (as opposed to the crap standard set up)

As a side note...the S3 chassis is crap standard. Numb, lifeless...
Adding lots of midrange grunt and having a decent chassis set-up allows you to make the chassis work, make it throttle adjustable where it isn't as standard.
At 315 lb-ft @ 4000 RPM mine had total traction...by 330+ it was getting a handful and was a bit wild in the wet...but still far more involving that a standard or less aggressively modified car.

PS: try to find nicer words for my comments because if I put a picture with my garage you will see that I am not a virtual player and who is "********"

I have no interest in whether you play with cars, your playstation or your toilet parts all day long. It's irrelevant.
Your comments are uninformed and false.
Are thay nice enough words?

I'm not trying to terach you the ins and outs, or to make my car seem something mythical (it wasn't...it was a well set up and carefully modified S3. That's all) but I AM trying to prove you can get 280BHP out of a highly strung S3 (as per your original point) AND more than factory power at factory peak power.

 

[Booth_S4]

the point we are making is that you CAN get more than 260BHP from the KO4 turbo!

 

[Ess_Three]

the point we are making is that you CAN get more than 260BHP from the KO4 turbo!

No only can you get more than 260BHP at the stanrard peak power point, but you can get approx 280BHP peak out of it (OK...not at the standard peak power point) if you are prepared to risk running it flat out (and inefficient) with suitable intercooling / inlet tweaks / cooler plugs etc.

 

[loftgroover]

Does anyone have a compressor map for the K04. We can clear this up in a very short space of time if we do....

 

[campbell]

i think you all like arguing over something minor- it was the same situation when i received a warning from one of the moderators of this site which is very unfair.
it is unfair how the moderators have the last say and the points they make in recent threads that have been locked are inmature.
so clear this up and some get a bl***y graph and end all this pettyness

i thought this was supposed to a helpful, friendly site!??

 

[ChriS3]

I've unfortunately lost all the info I had on the K04, but it's 'theoretical' max is 299.7bhp. That's in a perfect world with all things running as they could, and no car attached. Even then you're just under 2.2bar and there's no way it can maintain that in any drivable sense. Theroetical, not realistic.

However, there's more than enough people, with more than enough rolling road plots, on this site that have well above 260bhp.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Does anyone have a compressor map for the K04. We can clear this up in a very short space of time if we do....

Any use to you?

 

[andreitentean]

OK. So my mistake, then.
Sorry about waisting your time and for reading my uninformed and false pots.

At the end you have a poit: everyone has his own point of view about what he wants or likes in his car. You are right 100%. I didn't see that.
The K04 is not good for my way of driving and for my pleasure behind the wheel.

 

[loftgroover]

Assunming this is the compressor map for the K04.

Theoretical maximum is 279.015bhp @ 1 bar guage boost

I got this by:

@ Pressure ratio 2 the maximum flow possible compressor flow is .175m3/s

@ 1.25 kg per m3 of air at sea level .175m3/s = .2225kg/s of air through the compressor

.2225kg/s = .4895 lb/s = 29.37 lb/min

@ 9.5hp per lb/min ( assuming well tuned engine) = 279.015hp

So, more than 280hp is impossible.
More than 270hp is unlikely but just acheivable.
260hp is not a problem.

Fact not fiction.

 

[andreitentean]

Assunming this is the compressor map for the K04.

Theoretical maximum is 279.015bhp @ 1 bar guage boost

I got this by:

@ Pressure ratio 2 the maximum flow possible compressor flow is .175m3/s

@ 1.25 kg per m3 of air at sea level .175m3/s = .2225kg/s of air through the compressor

.2225kg/s = .4895 lb/s = 29.37 lb/min

@ 9.5hp per lb/min ( assuming well tuned engine) = 279.015hp

So, more than 280hp is impossible.
More than 270hp is unlikely but just acheivable.
260hp is not a problem.

Fact not fiction.

Ok, so I prefer to be a litle pesimist in my expectations.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Well, the file name for the compressor map shown is k04-0025. So I would guess it's for one of the K04s used on the B5 S4. I'm not sure how or whether the map would be different compared to the K04-020, 022 or 023.

 

[loftgroover]

Im not familiar with KKK or Borgwarner product but i guess the changes will only be compressor wheel trim size so the total figure will be roughly the same...

 

[Ess_Three]

Assunming this is the compressor map for the K04.

Theoretical maximum is 279.015bhp @ 1 bar guage boost

I got this by:

@ Pressure ratio 2 the maximum flow possible compressor flow is .175m3/s

@ 1.25 kg per m3 of air at sea level .175m3/s = .2225kg/s of air through the compressor

.2225kg/s = .4895 lb/s = 29.37 lb/min

@ 9.5hp per lb/min ( assuming well tuned engine) = 279.015hp

Which begs the question...why limit the calculation to 1 bar g of boost?

If a calibrated test gauge and transducer can show sustained boost of 1.25 above atmospheric, surely the maximum possible power increases?
Sadly, the heat produced increases too...but with efficient ICs it's possible to run more than 1.0 bar sustained boost...and get more?

So, more than 280hp is impossible.
More than 270hp is unlikely but just acheivable.
260hp is not a problem.

Fact not fiction.

I agree that 260 is relatively easy - although it's not just a re-chip as many think.
270 is achievable...as my graph shows. This was on a car with every tweak I could think of bar changing the turbo and manifold.
280 I'd argue IS achivable in certain cases...although I couldn't crack it...the most I got was 274.5 on a VERY highly strung K04.
Which...again, according you your calculations IS possible.

That's the point I was trying to make...it IS possible...just not common.

 

[Ess_Three]

Im not familiar with KKK or Borgwarner product but i guess the changes will only be compressor wheel trim size so the total figure will be roughly the same...

Roughly the same yes...perhaps slightly more available if the K04.xx of the S3 is deemed to be slightly 'better'...by a handful of possible BHP...which takes it further towards the 'mythical' 280 we were speaking of, does it not?

Either way...more than 260 BHP at standard max power point IS achivable.

 

[Ess_Three]

OK. So my mistake, then.
Sorry about waisting your time and for reading my uninformed and false pots.

At the end you have a poit: everyone has his own point of view about what he wants or likes in his car. You are right 100%. I didn't see that.
The K04 is not good for my way of driving and for my pleasure behind the wheel.

You haven't wasted anybody's time...and you have valid points about driving style...but to rubbish other peoples power/torque characteristics is naive, and I think we have proven, through this conversation, that a K04 is more capable than you thought.

Every day is a school day...nobody is too old to learn something. Threads like this should educate as well as prompt debate.

 

[loftgroover]

Which begs the question...why limit the calculation to 1 bar g of boost?

If a calibrated test gauge and transducer can show sustained boost of 1.25 above atmospheric, surely the maximum possible power increases?
Sadly, the heat produced increases too...but with efficient ICs it's possible to run more than 1.0 bar sustained boost...and get more?
quote]

I didnt "limit" the calculation at 1 bar, the map did. The compressor map shows that at a flow of .175m3/s the only point it can operate is a pressure ratio or 2 ( left hand axis). A pressure ratio of 2 = 1 bar guage pressure ( i.e 1 bar atmospheric + 1 bar boost )
from the map posted the turbo will not run at 1.25bar for the max flow of .175m3/s ( it will of course run more pressure if required but only at a lower flow than .175)

If one were to try and run more than 1 bar at the max flow point the turbo would overspeed (speed as indicated by the black lines running left to right) and explode. Nasty. This actually shows quite well why many people damage turbochargers by not sizing them correctly for the application.

Anyway, its a mute point. some rough calcs show 280 is an abosiulte limit for this system.

Plus (and this might be a bit controversial) rolling road dynos are only accurate to +-5 HP, due to atmospheric variations.

We could get 300 hp from the system if you use a higher calorific fuel but thats just being picky....

 

[andreitentean]

Every day is a school day...nobody is too old to learn something. Threads like this should educate as well as prompt debate.

I agree with you. YOU ARE WRIGHT.

 

[Ess_Three]

I didnt "limit" the calculation at 1 bar, the map did. The compressor map shows that at a flow of .175m3/s the only point it can operate is a pressure ratio or 2 ( left hand axis). A pressure ratio of 2 = 1 bar guage pressure ( i.e 1 bar atmospheric + 1 bar boost )
from the map posted the turbo will not run at 1.25bar for the max flow of .175m3/s ( it will of course run more pressure if required but only at a lower flow than .175)

Ok...I can't read the graph, which is why I asked.

So if the turbo can't run at .175m3/s when producing high pressures, at the top end, does this explain why the torque curve drops off so quickly?
I assume so.

You can get more that 1 bar of boost from it...you can get 1.85+ peak, but you can't fill the cylinders as it's so small...so you can get high torque where the turbo can fill, but not where it can't. Is this correct?

If one were to try and run more than 1 bar at the max flow point the turbo would overspeed (speed as indicated by the black lines running left to right) and explode. Nasty. This actually shows quite well why many people damage turbochargers by not sizing them correctly for the application.

I agree that it's not doing the turbo any good running over it's efficiency curve. I never suggested it was.

The standard MAP sensor only reads to 1.55 bar ish (you need a MAP clamp to avoid limp mode at silly high boosts for big torque)...and it's reasonably accurate against a calibrated gauge or transducer...so if all the signs are showing 1.25 bar at 5700 (3 sources) then the turbo can provide it...at a place where it's running highly inefficienty - hence the need for very good ICs as the turbo is a very good heat pump at that sort of boost.

Anyway, its a mute point. some rough calcs show 280 is an abosiulte limit for this system.

I agree...
And that's on a highly strung K04 with all possible restrictions in the system removed and running some aggressive ignition timing on high octane pump fuel.
As mine was...

Plus (and this might be a bit controversial) rolling road dynos are only accurate to +-5 HP, due to atmospheric variations.

The dyno should be compensated to DIN standard to remove the atmospheric issue...but the calibrated is still only accurate to 2-3% (MAHA's figures) - which is the 4-5 BHP you suggest.

We could get 300 hp from the system if you use a higher calorific fuel but thats just being picky....

Even then, I have my doubts about any claims of 300BHP.
Maybe in rocket fuel...but I doubt it on readily available pump fuel.
I think realistically 280 is the max, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

[loftgroover]

Ok...I can't read the graph, which is why I asked.

So if the turbo can't run at .175m3/s when producing high pressures, at the top end, does this explain why the torque curve drops off so quickly?
I assume so.

There are two factors that cause this. You are correct in that the turbo cannot sustain high boost at high flows and this certainly has an effect on torque but the primary factor is volumetric efficency. Even with continuously variable cam timing the variable range has limits ( hence independent hydraulic lifters are the stuff of dreams for race teams) So most engines and cam are designed to operate over a given rpm and this optimisation over the 3000-4500 range means itorque drops off very quickly at higher rpm. Basically the system is optimised for a given gas velocity i.e rpm, if its too quick the valve lift and timings are all wrong so the cylinders dont fill properly and the torque drops rapidly.

You can get more that 1 bar of boost from it...you can get 1.85+ peak, but you can't fill the cylinders as it's so small...so you can get high torque where the turbo can fill, but not where it can't. Is this correct?

Pretty mutch. But dont think of the turbo in isolation, the actuall cylinder fill is determined by cam lift and timing and inlet plenum chamber design. The matching engineers at KKK will have sized the turbo in relation to the cam setup and fuel/ignition maps that audi wanted, the object of the excersie is to get the turbo to run at its most efficent ( minimal heat into the charge air) where the max torque point is. that results in the most efficient engine. The problem is that engines operate over a 6000rpm range so there will always be compromises.

At .13m3/s the turbo can sustain 1.75 bar continuos, if it were forced to run at 1.85 bar it would be well over is mechanical speed limit ( the top black line approx 183500rpm) so this could only be sustained for a very very short time.

I agree that it's not doing the turbo any good running over it's efficiency curve. I never suggested it was.

The standard MAP sensor only reads to 1.55 bar ish (you need a MAP clamp to avoid limp mode at silly high boosts for big torque)...and it's reasonably accurate against a calibrated gauge or transducer...so if all the signs are showing 1.25 bar at 5700 (3 sources) then the turbo can provide it...at a place where it's running highly inefficienty - hence the need for very good ICs as the turbo is a very good heat pump at that sort of boost.

i think 5700 is not max engine speed so 1.25 may be possible if the flow was a little less than .175m3/s. if you follow the 2.25 line accross from the y axis, whereit falls outside the map will be the point at which it will give up at that pressure.

Even then, I have my doubts about any claims of 300BHP.
Maybe in rocket fuel...but I doubt it on readily available pump fuel.
I think realistically 280 is the max, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

I was thinking about race fuel or methanol, if you can find that at a pump, let me know where

That by the way is how all these 900bhp evos run. 110 Ron @ £25 a litre...

 

[Defratos]

It'll take me a week to understand all the above , is there a button on here "just for dummies"?? would be nice lol

 

[jojo]

It'll take me a week to understand all the above , is there a button on here "just for dummies"?? would be nice lol

Leave it to the experts my friend! We can only benefit from their wisdom. :icon_thumright:

 

[fingermouse]

would a flux capacitor help ?????




























if I give her any more she blow captain

 

[Ess_Three]

I think we can conclude that a K04 on a chipped S3 making 250-260 BHP is pretty effective and acceptable.

Beyond 260 BHP is achievable...but you start intriducing other traits, such as rapid torque/power drop off at high revs and higher inlet temperatures.

Getting to 280 BHP is possible, but ends up with a very explosive power delivery which drops off very quickly, and causes major heat related issues...it also needs optimising of EVERYTHING else and tweaking/bypassing of some of the standard electronic control systems.
It's the law of diminishing returns...yes it's possible, but at what cost?

And back to what andreitentean was saying about power delivery and how the car drives...you may like it with a very high/fast torque delivery but limited power band...you may not.
What suits one, may not suit another...

But 275+ BHP IS possible...if you want it bad enough and have the understanding / means to work the issues is raises.

But, it's probably easier and cheaper to bolt on a slightly bigger turbo and be done with it.

As for the flux capacitor, it didn't work...I have it dyno'd somewhere!

 

[Ess_Three]

loftgroover, thanks for the info in your last post. :icon_thumright:

 

[andreitentean]

so , the conclusion is prety much what I was saying in the begining.
255-260 is a power that you can obtain , you say easy, I say resonable. More than 260 is prety expensive so another turbo is , in my opinion, a much better option.

 

[Ess_Three]

so , the conclusion is prety much what I was saying in the begining.

No, I don't believe so...
You were saying you couldn't get close to 280BHP...or any more than 260 at the standard peak power point.
Which you can...on both points.

255-260 is a power that you can obtain , you say easy, I say resonable.

You can get 255-260 from simple bolt ons plus a re-map.
The rest takes more work.

More than 260 is prety expensive so another turbo is , in my opinion, a much better option.

I'll have to dissagree there...
A new turbo is expensive...
Big power from the K04 takes time, effort, and the right bits - some of them being custom and flowing work...which can be done cheaply if you have the skill and tools.
A big turbo can't...you still need someone to custom map it.

I'd still choose a K04 for 275 BHP anyday...I loved the low down torque.

The main problem with me going to a big turbo was that I'd loose low down torque to gain top end...and the roads I drive, I'd bet the car would be slower....or no faster. But my wallet would be considerably lighter.

I'll wait to drive ChriS3s car to know better...

 

[loftgroover]

loftgroover, thanks for the info in your last post. :icon_thumright:

No worries. My comfort zone is limited to turbochargers and engines though im afraid..

I have to say you read a lot of cr@p on the forums, but this is by far the best. Good advice over a range of subjects from people who have actually tried it, not just guessed or heard down the pub

Im only just starting on the S3 tuning journey (££££'S!) so Ill be seeking everyone elses advice for my braking and handling mods....

keep up the good work all...

 

[andreitentean]

The main problem with me going to a big turbo was that I'd loose low down torque to gain top end...and the roads I drive, I'd bet the car would be slower....or no faster.

You may have a point there !!! not slower, but more demanding to drive faster.
Now I have the IHI VF34, which I LOVE. Better for my pleasure than the K04 in all ways, and keep in mind that for all day driving I run 1bar stedy. The spoll up is faster than the OEM setup in every way.

 

[loftgroover]

I'll wait to drive ChriS3s car to know better...

I think im going the same way, GT2860RS Eliminator approx 330bhp. will suit me fine...

Would love to see ChrisS3s car and see how it goes and how the kit fits in...

 

[ChriS3]

I'll wait to drive ChriS3s car to know better...

You could easily have had a drive the other weekend, sorry didn't think to offer you one. Then again, after watching the sparks fly from the back of the Golf, I think we may have some trust issues. Lol

 

[Ess_Three]

You could easily have had a drive the other weekend, sorry didn't think to offer you one. Then again, after watching the sparks fly from the back of the Golf, I think we may have some trust issues. Lol

After swaying in the queue for brekkie, then ordering the wrong food, I doubted my ability to make a decent assessment!

Put it this way, I wouldn't have been quite so far behind me in my Golf along that backroad, if I was in your S3!
So maybe you'd better not let me drive it!

 

[ChriS3]

I think im going the same way, GT2860RS Eliminator approx 330bhp. will suit me fine...

Would love to see ChrisS3s car and see how it goes and how the kit fits in...

I had mine (GT28RS) fitted and mapped by Star Performance. Makes about 330bhp on thier rollers. Needless to say it goes pretty well. I've had a month or so to get used to it and its still difficult to keep to the legal side of 100mph.

The kit's a pain to fit, apparently. They droppped the engine to get access, there's a slight mod to the gear linkage (makes no difference to the gear change), and you can't use the standard TIP or airbox.

And it's nice to know that with a few extra mods and a boost hike, there's more to bhp to come.

 

[ChriS3]

After swaying in the queue for brekkie, then ordering the wrong food, I doubted my ability to make a decent assessment!

Put it this way, I wouldn't have been quite so far behind me in my Golf along that backroad, if I was in your S3!
So maybe you'd better not let me drive it!

With all your sparks, stones, and cow dung, I was keeping my new paintwork well away from you.

 

[Ess_Three]

With all your sparks, stones, and cow dung, I was keeping my new paintwork well away from you.

Yeah right...
I believe you.

 

[ChriS3]

Next time...


...Bruntingthorpe to Lutterworth perhaps?

 

[Ess_Three]

Ahh...you want to play on open sweeping roads?

On challenging back roads I'd have expected a 330BHP, 4WD (with fancy Haldex controller), coilover equipped, Porsche braked S3 to have at least kept an ill handling, overweight 5dr Golf in sight?
No?

 

[ChriS3]

Ill handling? Hmmmm, ok.

To be fair, it don't think it matters what car, what road, whatever. It's down to the size of the drivers balls

 

[Ess_Three]

Ill handling? Hmmmm, ok.

To be fair, it don't think it matters what car, what road, whatever. It's down to the size of the drivers balls

...or the residual alcohol level from the previous nights window-shopping!

 

[JamS3]

Chris

Roughly how much does this set up cost from Star?

 

[ChriS3]

It really depends on what you've already got. I paid about £3800 for mine, fitted and mapped. I already had the FMIC, exhaust, race cats, etc. so it was a little cheaper that it could have been.